Starcraft 2 Is Now A Trilogy, Footage

Another transmission from Shacknews at Blizzcon reveals that the three races of Starcraft 2 are going to get a game each, with each game effectively being a Starcraft 2 expandalone. That’s right: the three-campaign game we were expecting is now three distinct games.

Each campaign will be very different, with [Blizzard bossman] Pardo announcing the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaign will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will feature a Protoss mini-campaign.

Apparently each of the campaigns has enough content to justify a full, separate release. Apparently. Hmm. Two new bits of footage after the jump.


  1. Meat Circus says:

    Milk Korea till it bleeds! Good thinking, evil capitalists.

    Me, I’m not paying £100 to play Starcraft 2. Thanks.

  2. Konky Dong 31: Wrath of the Zombie Fonz says:

    This plus the news that Diablo III will have micro-transactions (or “monetizing features” as they put it) and won’t be supporting mods makes me worried. All of this sounds like Activisions tomfoolery to me, I wouldn’t expect this sort of crap from Blizzard. I’ll still probably fork over whatever I have to too play these games, but I really wish Blizzard wasn’t milking them so much.

  3. Seniath says:

    Angry Internet Men – Weapons free, fire at will.

  4. SwiftRanger says:

    Should have been expected, those cinematics alone must cost them loads of money (WoW cash cow or not, I think even Blizzard doesn’t want to throw money away). A pity though that this will rule out a new fourth race in those expansions.

  5. Azhrarn says:

    ah well, obvious money grabbing scheme is obvious. :(

    Paying €150 (approx. $225) to get the complete single-player game is far to much for me, even if they price them at “expandalone” level it’ll still be €120 at the very least. So no thanks, i’ll get them from the bargain bin then.

    Hadn’t read the monitizing of D3 yet, but that makes it all clear, Activision is abusing the trusted Blizzard brands to create more cash-cows for itself.
    (as if an income of roughly $100 million a month from WoW alone isn’t enough)

  6. Seniath says:

    Have they actually announced the pricing anywhere?

  7. Meat Circus says:

    One of these days, Game Videos will get a video player that actually works more than 6% of the time.

  8. Meat Circus says:


    No, but Mr Rossignol said they would be ‘full’ releases, which to me implies full-price.

  9. Chris says:

    I’ll probably end up buying all three since SC is one of my favourite games ever. I guess I’m disappointed that I’ll probably have to wait two years extra to get the Protoss campaign but simultaneously I’m excited for what this all means for the scope of the thing.

    I don’t want any extra races. 3 is plenty. Instead of diluting them by introducing more Blizzard should concentrate on making each totally different and I think this approach will aid that. Especially in the single player campaigns. I would guess that you’ll also get Brood War style new units introduced for the races with each expansion/new game as well so that should help refresh the multiplayer every year or so as well.

  10. Urael says:

    I wonder if the first game will be released a full price, with the following campaigns available at a lower price, much like with Half-Life 2 and episodes 1 & 2? I’d like to think they won’t be looking to charge fulll price for each segment, considering they’d be duplicating the multiplayer component available in the first release. But then again my cynicism towards Big Gaming and it’s money-hungry tactics seems to know no bounds these days…

  11. Azhrarn says:

    Urael, I think it’ll be safer to count on full price for each of the 3. That way it will atleast seem a little better, but it’s still a ripoff.

    Games should ship feature complete, and Blizzard used to be a developer that always stood for that. It is obvious to me that they no longer do, and are content to ship a game that’s one-third finished and ask full price for it. And repeat the insult 3 times for good measure.

  12. Thomas Larsen says:

    This plus the news that Diablo III will have micro-transactions (or “monetizing features” as they put it) and won’t be supporting mods makes me worried. All of this sounds like Activisions tomfoolery to me, I wouldn’t expect this sort of crap from Blizzard. I’ll still probably fork over whatever I have to too play these games, but I really wish Blizzard wasn’t milking them so much.

    Really? This is the first news i hear about microtransactions, other than the fact they’ve said in the past they do not want to do it.

    Regarding mods, mods were never actually supported, that it was possible with Diablo 2 doesn’t mean it’s supported, and if it is possible with Diablo 3 it doesn’t mean it’s supported either.

    Modding will probably be possible to some extent, but from what i understood the world is harder to mess with because of the new technology.

    Regarding splitting up the campaigns, i’m disappointed, but not surprised, and i doubt i will mind given Blizzard’s record of quality.

    I can understand that they want to keep their high quality, and rather get the Terran campaign done, so they can ship both a good campaign as well as a good online component.

    If not, they’d probably have to cut corners, making the campaigns very bland and boring after the Terran one, or the game would probably not even make it for 2009.

    Infact i want this game yesterday :(

  13. Heliocentric says:

    Azhram… Why should they bundle 3 campaigns together when they can sell one at a time? Why make less money, too many raving fans who’ll buy anything. You have a bloody nation of fans for one.

    The multi player will be complete in the first game, so really that’s all I need. To be honest this model isn’t a hundred miles from the company of heroes model. I’ll need a demo however, everything I’ve seen about how you actually PLAY the game has put me off. Click button powers rather than unit features, for example.

    In company of heroes, you put a unit in cover its tougher, its got a panzershrek and it messes up light vehicles, and if you get it behind a heavy tank it can do heavy damage.

    In Starcraft 2, I use my anti tank unit on a tank, and it either wins, or I need to use my “anti tank ability” to ensure victory. Or, even more terribly, I use a mobile unit and micro my self around that tank till it dies.

    Eh, for this one? Demo or no buy I think.

  14. Mark-P says:

    Like the DoW2 video, these demonstrate some rather overfamiliar and uninspired gameplay. I have CnC3 on my shelf right now for this sort of thing – what’s the selling point for SC2?

    Starcraft 1 seems so old and primitive now, and Company of Heroes still feels fresh and fun and well designed, so DoW2 is ahead on points for having a better source for its derivation.

    Just what *is* Blizzard doing with all their money anyway? o_O

  15. SteveTheBlack says:

    I was already on the fence, but this announcement has killed any interest I had in this game. I’ll just sit it out until the eventual budget pack release of all three, then I might be tempted to give it a shot.

    I’m not paying premium price for three separate releases that, as far as I’m concerned, should probably have all been in one product. Of course, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong and that they actually are significant stand-alone products in and of themselves, there’s a first time for everything, right?

  16. Taxman says:

    Each Starcraft game will have around 30 single player missions so its not light on those.
    link to

    To those complaining this is Activisions hand I don’t think it is at all, for one ATV doesn’t care what Blizzard does as long as the golden goose of WoW keeps on giving. To me Blizzard it taking an opportunity to experiment and give fans something more as its not like any Starcraft fan isn’t going to buy all the games after waiting ten years.

    The idea with different takes on each game sounds pretty cool to me.

  17. Wurzel says:

    Hmm, it’s certainly an interesting decision. What it says to me is that Blizzard are trying to make the single-player something truly special. If the Terran campaign is a full game’s worth of campaign I’d be happy – after all, Dawn of War only had a Space Marine campaign and that was great. If you don’t buy the others, I presume you’ll just be missing out on the story and some new units.

    Always liked Startcraft’s story, but to many this will look like an invitation to piracy – they’ve paid for the main body of the game, and probably won’t want to again.

  18. StalinsGhost says:

    :/ If they expect me to pay £25-35 for each installment, they’ve got another thing coming. If it’s cheaper, then I suppose it might be already, but as it is, I can’t help but feel we’re being ripped off.

  19. Rei Onryou says:

    The super secret fourth race is only available if you buy all 3 campaigns, sell your soul, give them a blood donation every month and donate your organs to Actard.

    I wonder if they’ll include a secret cash-cow level…

  20. The Hammer says:

    Man, I’m surprised by this change. SC2 isn’t a game I’m looking forward to much, but if there are three separate games to buy to get the full experience… um…

  21. rei says:

    I doubt Activision has anything to with this. It seems like the sort of thing that would be decided very early on in the development cycle; they haven’t been sleeping together for that long.

    I suppose this thing might not be a money-grubbing scheme, and simply an attempt to do something epic with the franchise–who knows. I do know that when people get a taste of big money, though, anything less just won’t do anymore :p There isn’t a shadow of a doubt that WoW hasn’t changed the company.

  22. Jetsetlemming says:

    I’m reminded of Pokemon.

    How will multiplayer work? I can only imagine all three come with a fourth multiplayer game with all three races within.
    Imagine if they made you buy a game to use that individual race, though. MAN!

  23. RichPowers says:

    I’m not that surprised by this announcement. Several months ago, Blizz said that the Zerg and Protoss campaigns would be totally different from the Terran campaign. Also keep in mind that the Terran campaign is the only one they’ve discussed in any detail (Jim roaming around the battlecruiser, taking missions, buying units, etc.)

    Anyway, I’ll probably wait six years and just buy the inevitable battle chest :)

    And microtransactions in Diablo III? Inconceivable (I hope).

  24. Cunningbeef says:

    Was about to post the exact same points that rei made.

    Blizzard totally peaked with Blackthorne. There, I said it.

  25. brog says:

    Unless the latter two are at a significantly reduced price, I’ll be pirating them. I may subsequently purchase them if I find that there is so much content in them that it is actually worth the money. Games are overpriced already, which is why I usually only buy indie games, but Starcraft has a special place in my heart.

  26. The Apologist says:


    Blizzard releases a product which you judge might not be value for money, and that justifies you pirating them?

    Seriously weird. Where do you get your sense of entitlement from.

    If you don’t want the thing at the price it is being sold at, don’t buy it.

  27. brog says:

    @The Apologist:
    Given that there’s an option to try before I buy and see if it really is value for money, why wouldn’t I take it?
    Also, I come from a country where games cost about three times as much as in the American land, so we’re talking a lot of money here. And I’ll probably be too impatient to wait for it to end up in bargain bins.

  28. Azhrarn says:

    I can certainly understand Blizzard wanting to make more money, but considering they can fund everything they ever dreamt off for years to come with WoWs monthly revenue of $100 million plus, I question their motivation to split this game up. If all 3 campaigns are each good enough quality and have the best storylines ever realised in RTS then I might consider buying them, but even then they had better not be the usual €50-€55 we’re expected to pay these days. I only shell out that kind of money for complete games, not one-third of a game. I couldn’t care less for the multiplayer since I’m far to slow for SCs insane gameplay speeds.

  29. pkt-zer0 says:

    Releasing the main game in 2009, with two expansions in the following two years doesn’t seem much more money-grubbing than what they’ve already been doing.

  30. The Apologist says:


    I agree to the extent that companies should make the effort to give people the chance to try before they buy on an open platform like the PC etc. but I have never understood why, where that is not offered, that justifies going down an illegal route to taking it.

    As you point out, for those not prepared to pay the initial asking price, there will be a cheaper option down the line. Surely it is better to wait and pay less later, than take something you have no right to?

    And I do appreciate the cost of this stuff – I am from the UK. Games are expensive.

    For me, I have no right to play it if I am not prepared to pay what they ask. So if I can’t afford it, or I just don’t think it is worth the money, then I can’t have it. Plain and simple.

  31. Gap Gen says:

    It’s interesting, because playing it safe and just making a straight sequel would have netted them a lot of cash as it is. Maybe the multiplayer comes full with all of them, so the Koreans don’t care?

  32. Konky Dong 31: Wrath of the Zombie Fonz says:

    @Azhrarn & Others:

    I pulled the D3 “micro-transactions” quote from here:

    link to

    “However, the developer did note that Blizzard will likely monetize unknown features of the game.

    “We are going to monetize features so that we get to make them,” said Wilson. “We kind of have to.”

    Wilson noted that whatever the content would be, it would have an appropriate value to users. “

  33. brog says:

    @The Apologist:

    Fair enough. For me, I see no practical difference between playing it now and buying it later when it’s more affordable, or just playing it then. I do the same with TV shows – download as they come out and then buy the dvd box set later. Usually with games I do wait until they’re cheaper to buy (which is when I have hardware that can run them anyway) but sometimes I’m impatient.

  34. Heliocentric says:

    Wow funding other projects is bad business. Everything must turn the maximum profit without endangering future profits. But i need to throw a spear in the bull. These 3 games could be incredible single player campaigns, or shit. Distressing about your sense of entitlement being disturbed makes no sense. The games will cost what they cost and if you think thats too much? Don’t buy them, otherwise you are the reason they charge so much. Hell, if starcraft 2 came out and didn’t break the top 10 you know damn well it’d get reduced.

  35. subedii says:

    I don’t understand all the complaints on this one. We don’t even know the length of the campaigns and the detail going into them, nor do we know the pricing structure. Assuming the singleplayer is of similar length, or possibly that the pricing reflects the length and quality of the three products, I can’t say I have a problem with this one. Blizzard haven’t exactly been known to be stingy with content thus far, so I’d be willing to wait and see.

    There were similar complaints about Half-Life 2’s Episodes. Oh Wow, great money grubbing move Valve, you’re just MILKING people for more money and not bothering to deliver a whole game.

    There’s something to be said for incremental development cycles, not just for the players, who’ll be getting more content at shorter intervals, but also for companies, who now actually have the opportunity to take on feedback and apply it to later units in the series.

    With what little information we’ve been given so far, I don’t see the problem.

  36. Steve says:

    All of this sounds like Activisions tomfoolery to me, I wouldn’t expect this sort of crap from Blizzard.

    Did you ever play WoW? They charge a monthly subscription, bring out almost no content patches and then expect you to fork out 20 quid for an expansion when it hits. Not to mention charging you real money for a server transfer and name change.
    Yeah, Blizzard are just moneyhungry. It has nothing to do with Activision – they’re exactly the same. Milk, milk, milk.

    Next up: Diablo 3 will come with 1 class per box. You read it here first, folks.

  37. Sucram says:

    I think multiplayer is the same with all of them. I can see quite a lot of people buying the first one then pirating the other two.

  38. Alteisentier says:

    I really don’t see why everyone is flailing and carrying on over this. Or even blaming them for milking for money. It’s a game and two expansion packs, no one gets upset and flails when they released an expansion pack for Warcraft 3, or Warcraft 2, or starcraft, or any other game that has an expansion.

    What about dawn of war? didn’t they pull off a worse stunt than this? At least Blizzard is going to give you the most for your money. A full 30ish mission storyline with full multiplayer, (Lol buying expansions for one extra race online in DoW) from what it seems they have gone quite all out, giving each mission a 3D rendered interactive little text adventure briefing thingy, and even ones to end mission the mission and show you what happens afterwards of just a huge glowing “YOU WINRAR THE MISSION” text you get from any other RTS

    I don’t know, I think it will work quite well instead of splitting the game into three brief and short campaigns and then having to release more expansion packs just to tie them all up. The two expansions are going to be diffrently themed as well, the Zerg one follows a more RPG style and apparently the Protoss are going all diplomatic (Civ style between planets?) So as long as they arn’t going to charge 60 euro for each one, which I doubt they would. There just oesn’t seem to be much reason to complain over them taking time and doing a more episodic style release to make the story better.

  39. brog says:

    >There were similar complaints about Half-Life 2’s Episodes.
    >Oh Wow, great money grubbing move Valve, you’re just
    >MILKING people for more money and not bothering to
    >deliver a whole game.

    If they’re priced as episodes I’m happy. Just there was talk that they’d be full price, which probably half the internet would interpret as “pirate me plz”. It would take a lot to convince me that each single campaign is worth a hundred dollars (it’s not impossible; if it turns out to be incredible I’ll happily pay), and I know plenty of people who won’t be convinced under any circumstances.

  40. TheDeadlyShoe says:

    I don’t mind the core game having just one campaign so long as its a high quality lengthy campaign. But I better not be paying full price for expansions that are just singleplayer content. 90 missions in the same engine with the same units simply isn’t worth $150.

  41. TheDeadlyShoe says:

    What about dawn of war? didn’t they pull off a worse stunt than this? At least Blizzard is going to give you the most for your money.

    All of Dawn of War’s expansions added one or two complete races as well as units to existing races. Dark Crusade retailed for $30.

    Half Life 2 Episodes 1-2 came with entire other games as well as engine updates and new gameplay mechanics. I forget their retail, though

    If $30 thats the kind of price we’re looking at for just singleplayer content, that’s high but maybe-acceptable. But I’m certainly not paying full AAA game price and that’s what ‘splitting it into 3 games’ implies.

    @Brog: In my experience, ‘try before you buy’ usually means ‘find some criticism to justify never buying after playing through the game completely’. :p

  42. Tei says:

    I was interested, but 150€ for a 2002 game is too much. I already have Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, that are 2008 games.

  43. brog says:

    @TheDeadlyShoe: Well, sometimes you do play through a game completely and are left feeling empty and disappointed. I will certainly be buying SC2 itself as soon as it comes out, because Blizzard have a good track record (despite the abomination that is WoW), but if the separate campaigns are full price.. probably not.

  44. The Apologist says:


    Still don’t think there is an excuse for pirating, but I can understand being impatient for SC2!!

    Really looking forward to this, and I hope the model of HL2 episodes or Dawn of War is what they look to.

  45. Tom says:


  46. James says:


  47. garren says:


    My work here is done.

  48. A-Scale says:

    How could Blizzard do this! How dare they offer us MORE content broken up into intervals rather than make us wait for 3 years for a single game which would by then be far outdated, or give us an unfinished game! This is an outrage. You know where I live in Pompousistan AMERICAN games cost over 700 billion dollars. EACH. And they dare charge us for THREE separate games?! Somebody call the air force. Somebody call the navy. Somebody call Jack Thompson!

  49. c-Row says:

    Somebody just STFU! If after ten years they still don’t manage to deliver the whole experience in one game… jeez! Not even Valve are taking this long.

  50. Steelfist says: